Historic day for the UK: Salmond consults Scotland but can't civilise Paxman

Scotland's Prime Minister has launched a consultation with the people over the coming independence referendum. He seeks a calm, normal process but will Westminster let him have it? the tables are already turned as the nationalists are rational and the traditional Unionists become incoherent retro-romantics.

25 January 2012, Burns Night, will be
remembered as a historic, watershed day for Scotland and the UK.

Alex Salmond announced to the Scottish
Parliament his government’s proposed question for the autumn 2014 referendum on
Scottish independence, ‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent
country?’ This was he said ‘short, straightforward and clear’ (1).

The Scottish Government consultation paper,
‘Your Scotland, Your Referendum’ (2) is a cogent, thoughtful document, offering
the vision of a modern, progressive Scotland at ease with itself and its
neighbours. Alex Salmond even states in his foreword, ‘Scotland is not oppressed
and we have no need to be liberated’ (3).

The ‘Braveheart’
Nationalism of the British State

Those are important
words because of the caricatures of Scottish nationalism which its enemies have.
This can be witnessed in the widespread misinterpretation of the most famous
exchange in the film version of ‘Trainspotting’ where the main character Renton
invokes that Scotland has been colonised but not by an oppressor you can
respect, proclaiming that, ‘we, on the other hand, have been colonised by wankers’
(4).

This was meant by
writer Irvine Welsh as satire of a certain, ahistorical take of the Scottish
predicament, but sadly it has become the view of many unionists and
non-nationalists of Scotland, its culture and nationalist movement.

This has seen such
opinion buying into the ‘Braveheart’ stereotype of Scottish nationalism; of
seeing the SNP and self-government as romantic, irrational, sentimental
throwbacks and ultimately, anti-progressive and unmodern. It is a view which
flies in the face of the realities of the modern SNP and wider Scottish nationalist
movement (which are two different entities). Alex Massie, always a thoughtful,
considered voice, understands this, writing:

This
is not a give me liberty or give me death type of struggle, far from it. In
general, you see, Salmond wants to strip emotion from the debate, not pour it onto the pyre. (5)

A strange switch has happened in which the
SNP have become thoughtful, pragmatic nationalists as far as you could imagine
from ‘Braveheart’ and ‘Trainspotting’ sentiment. Instead, the romantic, fantasyland
nationalists are those defending the British state and Westminster world: Gordon
Brown, David Cameron and the unionist parties in Scotland.

They are romantic nationalists because they
are letting their emotional attachment to the idea of the UK drive how they
think of things. They tell themselves and the rest of us a selective,
implausible, sanitised version of British history where we only did good
things: brought ‘civilisation’ to the Empire, abolished slavery and beat the
Nazis, and never address the complexities, nuances and darkside of having been
an imperial power. In short, the new romantic nationalists defend an idealised,
fictionalised United Kingdom, a world of in the words of Michael Moore, Lib Dem
Secretary of State for Scotland, ‘a generous welfare state’ (6); the parallel
universe of Gordon Brown’s land of liberty, tolerance and dissent (7). Alex
Massie notes this significant change, commenting that ‘increasingly it is Unionism that tugs the heart’ (8).

Alex Salmond’s Hugo Young Memorial Lecture
was one part of the choreographed bigger picture that is SNP strategy (9).
Salmond had many audiences to address in this, the most important of which
weren’t in the room, namely the domestic Scottish audience. SNP thinking, from
al-Megrahi to Salmond’s visits to China and Dubai, is about Scotland taking a
more prominent international profile and its place on the global stage.

There were different London Guardianista audiences, first, those who
cannot get over the idea of an independent Scotland, gripe about nationalism,
and feel threatened by the possibility that England may be left governed, god
forbid by the English. Second, there are the others who Salmond can if not make
common cause with, establish a dialogue with, many of whom see in Scotland an
idealised centre-left community, i.e.: all that England and the UK isn’t. There
is a bit of romanticism in that view too.

Salmond’s official story of progressive Scotland
paints a powerful picture:

The
Scottish Government’s policies attempt to protect many values which would be
dear to any post-war social democrat in these isles. For example, we have
promoted what we call a living wage - £7.20 an hour. And we have made a
conscious decision to provide certain core universal services, rights or
benefits, some of which are no longer prioritised by political leaders
elsewhere – such as free university tuition, free prescriptions, free personal
care for the elderly and a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies across the
public sector. (10)

This is a selective account of social
democratic Scotland, its achievements and how it feels which takes little
account of the distributional consequences of these decisions. But as
positioning it is masterful.

This moment requires a calmness and
consideration to allow Scotland and the UK to have a reasoned debate and discussion.
So far both the British political classes and media, and a large part of
unionist opinion in Scotland has shown no indications that it has the capacity
or qualities to do so.

The worst recent example of this wasn’t the
tirades of Melanie Phillips or Simon Heffer, both of who preach to the
converted about a ‘subsidy junkie Scotland’. Instead it comes from the BBC
‘journalist’ Jeremy Paxman, who has a track record in wearing his prejudice on
his sleeve with regard to Scotland and Scottish independence.

Paxman’s ‘interview’ with Alex Salmond on
‘Newsnight’ was one characterised by Paxman’s condescending, metropolitan media
elite disdain for Salmond and Scottish independence (11). Paxman was clearly
indignant at the positivity and optimism of Salmond’s Hugo Young lecture, and
his call for Scotland to be ‘a beacon for progressives’, using this to invite a
comparison between Scotland and Zimbabwe, and then following this, to sink even
lower, comparing Salmond and Mugabe.

The whole interview was shaped by Paxman’s
scorn and Salmond’s good humour and grace, realising how this would play back
home with domestic voters. Paxman went through issue after issue, the UK
national debt, public spending, the gold reserves, and challenged Salmond to
explain his sheer effrontery in daring to think that an independent Scotland
was possible and viable. ‘How would an independent Scotland pay for the BBC license
fee?’ he asked, throwing his famously contorted face which had once brought
politicians as talented as Michael Howard and Tony Blair to account.

Paxmanesque arrogance, over-reach and
machismo could be seen as a one off, unrepresentative of wider currents, but
there is a tendency in large aspects of the British political classes to
dismiss Scottish nationalism and the viability of Scottish independence in such
brutal, demeaning terms.

This can be seen in the Scottish political
environment whereby the unionist parties north of the border are still in
denial about the SNP, let alone Scottish independence. After Salmond’s statement
to the Scottish Parliament, Johann Lamont replied as leader of Scottish Labour,
in a nippy, ungracious manner which in three minutes used the pejorative word
‘separatism’ three times; she warned Salmond not to take for granted that ‘he
spoke for Scotland’ (12).

What this is influenced by is that the
unionist parties are shaped by regarding the SNP as illegitimate, and not part
of mainstream, moderate Scotland. Thus they regard the SNP Government as partisan
and not the expression of the national will in the way governments the world
are. This jaundiced view of the Nationalists makes Labour, Lib Dems and Tories
come across as slightly crazed and myopic.

After Salmond’s announcement to the
Parliament, he and Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister, went the short walk
up the Royal Mile to Edinburgh Castle to take press questions on the referendum.
This is a beautiful site in the heart of historic Edinburgh, and one well
suited and used for such occasions, famously, Donald Dewar in July 1997 when he
unveiled Labour’s White Paper on a Scottish Parliament. And yet given their
partisan view of the SNP what did Labour and the Lib Dems say this time? Labour
MSP Kezia Dugdale said, ‘Edinburgh Castle is a proud symbol of Scotland and
belongs to all of the people of Scotland – not Alex Salmond or the SNP’; Willie
Rennie, Scots Lib Dem leader offered the view that, ‘Things seem to have gone
to the First Minister’s head. To use Scotland’s national monument for party
political ends will just jar with people’ (13).

Evidence abounds of unionist parties not
understanding the appeal of the SNP and independence. One of the well-worn
dynamics as illustrated above is that Labour or other unionist politicians get
so irritated by the words or actions of SNP politicians that they go over the
top. Thus, Salmond’s claim that an independent Scotland could be ‘a progressive
beacon’ caused Willie Bain, Labour MP to respond about Salmond that, ‘the man
who said Scots didn’t mind Thatcherite economics, demanded lighter bank
regulation and backed Fred Goodwin might not know what the word progressive
means’ (14). The same observation could have been made of Gordon Brown.

A recent BBC ‘Question Time’ saw another
revealing example. Nicola Sturgeon made the calm case for Scotland being able
to debate and decide its constitutional future, an uncontroversial point, which
caused Douglas Alexander, Labour Westminster frontbencher and former Cabinet
minister, to retort that ‘we have had 40 years of debating the border issue’
(15). This was interesting language for no one senior in any Scottish party has
ever called the independence debate, ‘the border issue’, a phrase which carries
with it not just connotations of belittling, but sectarian strife and Northern
Irish associations.

Beyond
the Debate of ‘Two Tribes’

These are momentous, challenging times,
filled with a mixture of excitement and bewilderment, hope and fear, depending
on your political opinions. It is up to those of us who want a serious, mature
debate appropriate for the occasion to challenge and demand from all Scotland’s
and the UK political parties, media and political communities, that they act
respectively and reach out and understand perspectives different from their
own.

First, the pro-union forces have a
legitimate argument to put about the merits of Scotland remaining in the union,
but to do so and be heard, they need to argue a nuanced case which stresses the
positives of remaining in the UK; what they must not do for their sake is
retreat into their comfort zone of peddling fear and scaremongering stories
about independence.

Second, even more crucially and basically,
the union parties have to come to terms with the normalcy of the SNP and
Scottish independence. The SNP and independence are part of the mainstream;
they are not mavericks, eccentrics, wild men (and women), or even romantics –
these are the unionist stereotypes of a Scottish nationalism which has long
since passed away. The union forces need to stop girning and learnt to
empathise and relate to the modern SNP in front of them which isn’t that
different from them or the rest of Scotland (except that they happen to believe
in independence).

Third, the political classes and parts of
the media in Scotland and the UK need to stop using hackneyed language.
Newspapers in Scotland regularly use the word ‘separatism’ without any
qualification when this is a pejorative, partisan word. Labour, Lib Dem and
Tory politicians love getting worked into a lather taking emotively of Scotland
‘being wrenched out of the UK’ as Nick Clegg did recently. This is the last
stand of the romantic nationalists of the British state, and equally a sad
story of how Lib Dems north and south of the border, have bought into the once
Labour and Tory only Armageddon lexicon of seeing Scottish nationalism as the
equivalent of a UK version of the Vietcong!

This brings us to the current political
posturing between the Scottish and UK Governments over the nature of the
independence question. The Scottish Government has stressed that it is open to
two questions, one on independence and one on what is called ‘devo max’,
sensing this is where most Scottish public opinion currently is. The UK
Government and unionist opinion only want one question, thinking this offers
them the best prospect of winning.

The debate between one and two questions is
one that needs careful consideration by all sides rather than partisan
calculations of what options are most likely to win. What is self-evident is
that any referendum has to aid clarity, debate and decision on the part of the
general public, and not be about the knowledge of the political cognoscenti.
And offering up a multi-option referendum of ‘devo max’ and independence throws
up huge challenges, asking for two political concepts to be defined, one of
which, the former, has had no work done on it and at the moment has no
institutional supporters beyond a self-proclaimed, self-selecting group who
claim to speak for ‘civic Scotland’.

A two question referendum as is being currently
mooted isn’t in any way comparable to 1997’s Scottish Parliament two vote
question on a Parliament and its tax raising powers as it could be understood
as a binary choice: for or against a Parliament. Such a proposed vote hasn’t
really worked successfully anywhere in the world.

What equally matters is who calls the vote
and who is seen to call it. This is about the politics and legitimacy of the
vote rather than narrow legality. The best scenario is that the Scottish
Government find agreement with the UK Government which allows the former to
take the lead, call the vote and ask the question. A ‘Channel Four News’ poll
found only 12% of Scots saw the UK Government as being best placed to call and
run a referendum (16).

What such a figure reveals is that Scotland
has already embraced a de facto independence of the mind, that Scottish
politics are increasingly home grown, embrace a home rule politics, and Scottish
voters wanting to see more and more domestic policy decisions and priorities
made in Scotland by the Scottish Government, and have increasing questions of
trust and legitimacy about the British Government’s role in Scottish domestic
affairs (17).

All of this is part of a wider set of
events which point to a quiet, peaceful and gradual revolution happening before
our very eyes, of the emergence of a distinct Scottish public sphere and
statehood, which is progressive, generous and about the collective future of
its people, more than its past.

This is a Scottish story with major
English, UK and European, as well as global dimensions. It is a social
democratic story of a people and polity wishing to institutionalise their
values and priorities. It is a story of the slow, painful decline of Britain,
its state and statecraft, and how people see it. And it is as Anthony Barnett rightly
argues the end of the argument for ‘a different kind of British state’ (18). It
is the beginning of the conversation of what kind of post-British identities
will emerge, what kind of union and co-operation, and what sort of Britain,
society and role in the world we want to envisage.

Gerry Hassan is a writer, commentator and academic. He is co-Director of Scotland's Festival of Ideas and was awarded his PhD on political and cultural contemporary debate in the public sphere of Scotland.
Gerry is the author and editor of numerous books including ‘The Strange Death of Labour Scotland’ and the just published 'After Independence' (co-edited with James Mitchell). His most recent books
are 'Caledonian Dreaming: The Quest for a Different Scotland' and 'Independence of the Scottish Mind: Elite Narratives, Public Spaces and the Making of a Modern Nation'.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.